![]() | Feature: Physical Education
in Early Childhood | No.51 September 2007 |
||
Abstract
The topic of motor activity and cognition describes a transdisciplinary
research area. Paediatricians, psychologists, sociologist, philosophers,
sport scientists, to name only a few, are involved in this research. They
all have a different perspective on correlation and causation in terms of
cognition and motor activity and this is a very promising opportunity to
accumulate new knowledge. Scientific studies on the connection between motor
abilities and cognition have shown different results in the past: from the
claim of “no connections” between motor abilities and cognition
(e.g. Matsuda & Sugihara, 1973) and “partial connections”
(e.g. Schilling, 1973; Dickes, 1975; Krombholz, 1988) to “significant
connections” between motor function and cognition (e.g. Scherrer,
2000; Ahnert, Bös & Schneider, 2003; Graf, 2003; Voelcker-Rehage,
2005). There is a tendency towards the last statement in recent scientific
studies. The theories to explain the issue of correlation and causation
in terms of cognition and motor activity have changed. During the first
research peak in the 1970s, learning and developmental theories were focussed
on, whereas in the 21st century, new technologies mainly in the field of
neuropsychology explain connections between motor activity and cognition
by physiological mechanisms. Introduction
There are two dramatic developmental changes in the brain, one in early
childhood and one in old age. Both research areas are enormously important
socially and politically and of course in terms of physical and psychological
well-being. The interdisciplinary approach widens research opportunities
and interpretation of research results. Since the start of the 20th century,
there have been scientific studies involving motor and cognitive ability
tests and they have predominantly found a positive connection between
motor activity and cognition (cf. Sibley & Etnier, 2003). In the early
1990s, physiological processes in the brain were visualized through new
technologies (fMRT) for the first time before, after and during physical
activity. They have shown that physical activity has a positive impact
on brain function in the adult brain (cf. Hollmann & Strüder,
2003). These approaches will lead to new perspectives on motor and cognitive
development and on the influences of physical activity in childhood. Historical and chronological point of view
The connection between motor activity (body) and cognition (mind) was
discussed by Plato, Aristoteles, Rousseau. The dualistic perspective,
which holds that body and mind are not one unit, was in contrast to the
holistic perspective which means body and mind are one entity and anything
that happens to one will influence the other. The holistic perspective
is common sense these days (cf. Etnier, Salazar & Landers et al.,
1997), but in each decade there have also been contrasting opinions.
Mosso (1892), Keller (1894), Bettmann (1896) and Miesemer (1904) postulated
that physical activity is not useful for brain activities (cf. Sippel,
1927). Sad (1893) was one of the first who discussed the question whether
physical activity and academic achievement could be connected. Along with
Schmidt and Lessenich (1903) and Graupner (1904), he postulated that pupils
in later years of schooling are superior in their physical development
compared to others of the same age in younger years of schooling, who
did not successfully pass a class and repeated (cf. Sippel, 1927). Similar
theories were postulated by Duirsfeld (1905), Schierad (1914) and in the
annual report (1911/1912) of the school doctor service of Breslau (cf.
Sippel, 1927). Schüßler (1915) evaluated gymnasts and three
quarters of the best gymnasts were able to participate in senior classes
(cf. Sippel, 1927). Blom was, in this time, one of the first to differentiate
between the level of physical activity and effects on psychological well-being.
In his opinion, a high level of training in gymnastics is connected to
psychological exhaustion, while light and easy levels could improve psychological
achievements (cf. Sippel, 1927). As a result of breathing exercises, Lobsien
(1912) postulated an improvement of memory (cf. Sippel, 1927). Mahler
(1921) had the opinion that physical exercise in school breaks had at
least no negative influence (in Sippel, 1927, p. 33).
Sippel (1927) postulated that daily gymnastic training was necessary for
physical-intellectual-psychological development and gymnastics training
of 30-45 minutes had a positive influence on the well-being of the child.
The common opinion however, according to Sippel, was: „Either you
have muscles or brain “ (1927, p.1).
The methodological approaches of the presented studies and the tests
used were received with criticism and the research results are therefore
questionable (cf. Sippel, 1927).
Jean Piaget (1936) was one of the first scientists who looked at physical
development as one of the main factors for intellectual development in
children. He expressed this connection with the phrase ”sensomotor
intelligence“ in early childhood and therefore the inseparable link
between cognition and motor activity (cf. Piaget, 1975).
Not much research was undertaken in the field of cognitive and motor development
during the war and post-war periods. The question of correlation and causation
in terms of the connection between motor activity and cognition was taken
up again in the 1960s, reaching its first peak in the 1970s (cf. fig.
1). School notes were used as the main quantitative test criterium.
Figure 1: Published studies on motor activity
and cognition in childhood since 1970 (Everke & Payr, 2007).
![]() One of the first intervention studies was undertaken by Ismail and Gruber
(1967). They postulated no effects in IQ after a one year physical activity
program with children between 10-12 years, but found a positive impact
on academic achievement measured by the Stanford Academic Achievement
Test. Their conclusion was:
„Finally, the correlational and factor analytic study of relationships
between coordination and balance abilities on the one hand and academic
and intellectual achievement on the other would suggest that these two
areas of learning are closely related. It would seem to follow that if
advancement in one area can be brought about, a similar advance in the
second area could be anticipated”
(p.191). In a study by Ismail, Kane and Kirkendall (1969) the evidence points
to a positive association between the motor items of coordination and
balance with measures of intelligence and scholastic ability.
Leithwood and Fowler (1971), among others, evaluated the effects of 4 months of gymnastics training on complex and simple gross motor abilities and general cognitive and psychosocial functioning. Their results showed highly significant differences between motor- and nonmotor-trained groups in complex learning and significant differences in analytic cognitive style and aspects of psychological functioning, but not IQ.
These results were reflected in the study by Chissom (1971) called „A
factor-analytic study of the relationship of motor factors to academic
criteria for first and third-grade boys“. He found significant relationships
between motor abilities and measures of academic aptitude and academic
achievement for first-grade boys but not for third-grade boys. Therefore
he concluded:
„it would seem from the evidence in this study that perceptual-motor training would be more successful when administered to younger children“ (p. 1142). Eggert and Schuck (1975) interpreted their results according to the topics
of intelligence, motor ability and social status and postulated that there
is a correlation between social status and intelligence as well as between
motor ability and intelligence. The correlation between intelligence and
motor ability decreases when age increases as evaluated in a study by
Willimczik in 1975 (cf. Zimmer, 1996, S. 58). Cobb and Chissom (1975)
evaluated the „relationships among perceptual-motor, self-concept,
and academic measures for children in Kindergarten, grades one and two“.
In the conclusion of their study they wrote that perceptual-motor ability
is highly related to academic ability for all of the three grade levels.
Self-concept as an intervening variable cannot be supported by the results
of this study. In contrary to the presented studies, Schilling (1973)
did not find a general correlation between motor ability and intelligence.
The motor activity program designed for disadvantaged children by Schuck
and Adden (1973) showed significant improvements in the intervention group
compared to the control groups in terms of motor and cognitive abilities.
Thomas, Chissom, Stewart and Shelley (1975) designed an intervention program
as well, however, they could not underline the transfer hypothesis with
their results.
In the same year, Dickes (1975) evaluated kindergarten children with the
variables of cognitive and verbal abilities. His conclusion was that while
there are no connections between cognitive functioning and gross motor
skills, fine motor skills are another chapter.
Another intervention program was designed by Zimmer (1981). Her research
focus was motor ability, cognition and self-development in preschool children.
The results showed significant improvements in the intervention group
and therefore connections between motor ability and cognition. A short
daily intervention was more effective than a longer intervention over
a few times per week.
Scherrer (2000) postulated a highly significant connection between items
of intelligence and motor ability in preschool children. The connection
between practical intelligence and motor ability was higher then the connection
between verbal intelligence and motor ability. In contrast to the presented
studies by Chissom (1971), Eggert and Schuck (1975), Cobb and Chissom
(1975), Zimmer (1981) and the following studies by Ahnert, Bös and
Schneider (2003) and Voelcker-Rehage (2005) there has been no correlation
decrease with increasing age.
The Munich Longitudinal Study on the Genesis of Individual Competencies
(LOGIK) evaluated motor development and cognitive development between
1984-1993 during the preschool and school years (cf. Ahnert, Bös
& Schneider, 2003). They postulated:
„As a main result, all motor skills under study improved continuously
over the years of the study. They turned out to be rather stable over
the years, with stability increasing as a function of age. There was only
a low to moderate association between motor skills and intellectual abilities
on the one hand and physical attributes on the other. Correlation coefficients
varied considerably dependent on gender and within-group age differences.
Overall, the results indicate that motor development should be fostered
in both kindergarten and school“
(Ahnert, Bös & Schneider, 2003, p.185) In the Zürcher longitudinal study, no connections between IQ results
and motor ability tests were found. They proclaim a specific differentiation
dependent on the developmental stage of the participants (cf. Neuhäuser,
2004).
The longitudinal study by Krombholz (1988) showed no clear connection
between motor achievement and cognitive achievement. Another longitudinal
study of the same time by Becker et al. (1991) did show a connection between
motor ability and cognition.
In the 21st century, the second peak of research in terms of connection
between motor ability and cognition occurs (cf. fig.1). The impact of
physical activity on cognitive development is again the focus of research.
„It seems that the need to justify exercise and PE programs in the school has returned. PE programs are being cut from our schools in favour of „core academic“ subjects“ (Sibley & Etnier, 2003, p. 243.) The breakthrough of this second peak is the explanation of the impact
of physical activity on cognition: On the one side, there are again the
developmental and learning theories which underline the studies, and on
the other side the new theories about physiological changes as the outcome
of physical activity.
In 1986, Don R. Kirkendall wrote the following, which was dated a decade
after his statement:
„Surprisingly, I have been unable to find a single study that examines
the mind-body relationship from a physiological point of view or asks
whether physiological changes in the brain occur with exercise that would
also enhance intellectual development“
(Kirkendall, 1986, p. 58). In the late 90s, the advances in the fields of neuropsychology and animal
research were used to discover mechanisms that could explain the link
between physical activity and cognitive functioning (cf. Etnier, Salazar
& Landers, 1997). One mechanism is increased cerebral blood flow which
occurs during physical activity and could cause a benefit in cognitive
functioning through an increase in supply of necessary nutrients to the
brain (cf. Etnier, Salazar & Landers, 1997). Another possibility is
the change in neurotransmitter constellations, e.g. high levels of norepinephrin,
which are associated with better memory (cf. Etnier, Salazar & Landers,
1997).
Graf, Koch and Klippel et al. (2003) assessed motor ability and concentration
ability in primary school children. The children with the best results
in the motor ability test where those who achieved the highest scores
in the qualitative and quantitative concentration tasks. Graf’s
explanation is based on the common cerebral learning and control processes,
in addition to strain-induced neurophysiological and haemodynamic activation.
Bittmann, Gutschow and Luther et al. (2005) tested the hypothesis that
there is a connection between balance ability as a motor parameter and
school success as an intellectual parameter. Similar to the results of
Graf, Koch and Klippel et al. (2003), they found highly significant differences
between good and poor students. The explanation was described by the statement
that both intellectual and motor performances are considered a result
of the functioning of the nervous system. A dysfunction of the central
nervous system could lead to intellectual and physical deficit and balance
ability plays a prominent role due to higher neuronal processing.
The correlation between Motor and Cognitive Development in Early Childhood
was the topic of the study by Voelcker-Rehage (2005). There were significant
connections between motor abilities determined by the central nervous
system, e.g. fine coordination skills, and the accuracy of differentiation.
Children with high scores in the motor ability test where the ones with
high scores in the cognitive test. Similar to the studies by Bittmann,
Gutschow and Luther et al. (2005) and Graf, Koch and Klippel et al. (2003),
these are results discussed from a physiological perspective and the causation
may be that physical activity support processes of the central nervous
system that are also responsible for cognitive processes. The activity
dependent increase in cerebral blood flow, metabolic rate and neurotransmitter
concentration, or synaptogenesis, might be an explanation for these effects.
There are three meta-analyses about motor activity and cognition. Etnier,
Salazar and Landers et al. published their study on „The influence
of Physical Fitness and Exercise Upon Cognitive Functioning: A Meta-Analysis“
in 1997. The overall effect size of the meta-analysis was 0.25 and they
concluded that there is a small positive effect on cognition.
In 2003, Sibley and Etnier published another meta-analysis about „The
Relationship Between Physical Activity and Cognition in Children: A Meta-Analysis“.
The result of this study was that there is a significant positive relationship
between physical activity and cognitive functioning in children. Conclusion
The cause is yet unknown, but there is hardly any doubt in the research
community about correlations between motor activity and cognition. The
causation factor is evaluated by animal testing, and some results have
already had an impact on older peoples’ environments (thesis of
enriched environment) and behaviour (aerobic training) and in the education
system (active pause, enriched environment). But more research needs to
be done to support the transfer and causation hypothesis.
As Kirkendall said, “In closing, I will say there are valid research
questions to be answered in this area, and I suspect that we may again
see attempts at answering them” (1986, p. 58/59).
In a field experiment, proving causation and correlation is impossible
because of the complexity of a child’s development and environment.
The way to examine under laboratory conditions and try to transform these
scientific research results into the real world is the only possible but
also a most contested way. New technologies will lead to more detailed
information about the small pieces in the brain world. The medical and
neuroscientist breakthroughs can give us one part of the answer. These
approaches will lead to new perspectives, but only in connection to disciplines
which focus on the whole child (e.g. Paediatrics, Psychology, Sociology,
Philosophy) and research utilising inter- and trans-disciplinary teamwork
is necessary to learn more about the connection between motor activity
or motor development and cognitive abilities or cognitive development.
It’s a fortunate person whose brain
Is trained early, again and again. And who continues to use it To be sure not to lose it So the brain, in old age, may not wane (M.R. Rosenzweig, E.L. Bennett, 1996, p. 57-65). References
Ahnert, J., Bös, K. & Schneider, W. (2003). Motorische und kognitive
Entwicklung im Vorschul- und Schulalter: Befunde der Münchner Längsschnittstudie
LOGIK. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische
Psychologie, 35 (4), 185-199.
Becker, K.P. (Hrsg.). (1991). Entwicklungsdynamik drei- bis neunjähriger
Kinder. Ergebnisse einer interdisziplinären Längsschnittstudie
über die biopsychosoziale Entwicklung. Band 50: Beiträge zum
Sonderschulwesen und zur Rehabilitationspädagogik. Berlin: Verlag
Gesundheit.
Bittmann, F., Gutschow, S. & Luther, S. et al. (2005). Über den
funktionellen Zusammenhang zwischen posturalter Balanceregulierung und
schulischen Leistungen. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Sportmedizin, 56
(10), 348-352.
Chissom, B.S. (1971). A factor analytic study of the relationship of motor
factors to academic criteria for first –and third-grade boys. Child
Development, 42 (3), 1133-1143.
Cobb, P.R., Chissom, B.S. (1975). Relationships among perceptual-motor,
self-concept, and academic measures for children in kindergarten, grades
one and two. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 41, 539-546.
Dickes, P. (1975). Zusammenhänge zwischen motorischen und kognitiven
Variablen bei Kindern im Vorschulalter. In H.-J. Müller, R. Decker,
F. Schilling (Hrsg.), Motorik im Vorschulalter (S. 119-128). Schorndorf:
Hofmann.
Graf, C., Koch, B. & Klippel, S. et al. (2003). Zusammenhänge
zwischen körperlicher Aktivität und Konzentration im Kindesalter
– Eingangsergebnisse des CHILT – Projektes. Deutsche Zeitschrift
für Sportmedizin, 54 (9), 242-246.
Eggert, D., Schuck, K.D. (1975). Untersuchungen zu Zusammenhängen
zwischen Intelligenz, Motorik und Sozialstatus im Vorschulalter. In H.-J.
Müller, R. Decker, F. Schilling (Hrsg.), Motorik im Vorschulalter
(S. 67-82), Schorndorf: Hofmann.
Etnier, J.L., Salazar, W. & Landers, D.M. et al. (1997). The Influence
of Physical Fitness and Exercise Upon Cognitive Functioning : A Meta-Analysis.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 19, 249-277.
Graf, C., Koch, B., Klippel, S., et al. (2003). Zusammenhänge zwischen
körperlicher Aktivität und Konzentration im Kindesalter –
Eingangsergebnisse des CHILT – Projektes. Deutsche Zeitschrift für
Sportmedizin, 54, 9, 242-246.
Gruber, J.J. (1975). Exercise and mental performance. International Journal
of Sport Psychology, 6, 28-40.
Hollmann, W. & Strüder, H.K. (2003). Gehirngesundheit, -leistungsfähigkeit
und körperliche Aktivität. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Sportmedizin,
54 (9), 265-266.
Ismail, A.H. & Gruber, J.J. (1967). Integrated Development –
Motor Aptitude and Intellectual Performance. Ohio: Charles E. Merrill
Books, Inc.
Ismail, A.H., Kane, J. & Kirkendall, D.R. (1969). Relationships among
intellectual and nonintellectual variables. The Research Quarterly, 40
(1), 83-92.
Kirkendall, D.R. (1986). Effects of Physical Activity on Intellectual
Development and Academic Performance. In G. A. Stull & H. M. Eckert
(Eds.), Effects of Physical Activity on children. Champaign, Illinois:
Human Kinetics. American Academy of Physical Education Papers 19. (pp
49-63).
Krombholz, H. (1988). Sportliche und kognitive Leistungen im Grundschulalter
– Eine Längsschnittuntersuchung. Frankfurt am Main, Bern, New
York, Paris: Peter Lang.
Leithwood, K. A. & Fowler, W. (1971). Complex motor learning in four-year-olds.
Child Development, 42, 781-792.
Matsuda, I. & Sugihara, T. (1973). Effects of Perceptual-Motor Activity
on Cognitive Ability. Research Journal of Physical Education, 17 (6),
367-374.
Neuhäuser, G. (2004). Motorisches Lernen und kognitive Entwicklung.
In H. G. Schlack (Hrsg.), Entwicklungspädiatrie (S. 35-43). Hans
Marseille Verlag: München.
Piaget, J. (1975). Gesammelte Werke Studienausgabe Band 1: Das Erwachen
der Intelligenz beim Kinde. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag.
Rosenzweig, M.R. & Bennett, E.L. (1996). Psychobiology of plasticity:
effects of training and experience on brain and behavior. Beh.Brain.Res.,
78, 57-65.
Scherrer, J. (2000). Bewegung als Entwicklungsförderung bei Kindern
im Vorschulalter. Dissertation, Fachbereich Sportwissenschaften und Arbeitslehre,
Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität zu Frankfurt am Main.
Schilling, F. (1973). Motodiagnostik des Kindesalter – Empirische
Untersuchungen an hirngeschädigten und normalen Kindern. Berlin-Charlottenburg:
Carl Marhold Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Schuck, K.D. & Adden, D. (1973).Eine Untersuchung über den Einfluß
eines motorischen Trainings auf die Intelligenzleistung lernbehinderter
Sonderschüler. In D. Eggert, & E.J. Kiphard, Die Bedeutung der
Motorik für die Entwicklung normaler und behinderter Kinder. Schorndorf:
Hofmann.
Sibley, B.A. & Etnier, J.L. (2003). The Relationship Between Physical
Activity and Cognition in Children: A Meta-Analysis. Pediatric Exercise
Science, 15, 243-256.
Sippel, H. (1927). Leibesübungen und geistige Leistung. In C. Diem
(Hrsg.), Beiträge zur Turn- und Sportwissenschaft (Heft 5). Berlin:
Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.
Thomas, J.R., Chissom, B.S., Stewart, C. & Shelley, F. (1975). Effects
of Perceptual-Motor Training on Preschool Children: A Multivariate Approach.
Research Quarterly, 46, 505-513.
Voelcker-Rehage, C. (2005). Der Zusammenhang zwischen motorischer und
kognitiver Entwicklung im frühen Kindesalter – Ein Teilergebnis
der MODALIS-Studie. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Sportmedizin, 56 (10),
358-359.
Zimmer, R. (1996). Motorik und Persönlichkeitsentwicklung bei Kinder
(2. durchges. u. verbess. Aufl.). Hofmann Verlag: Schorndorf. Contact
Julia Everke
University of Constance Fachbereich Geschichte und Soziologie, Sportwissenschaft Konstanz, Germany Email: julia.everke@uni-konstanz.de ![]() http://www.icsspe.org/portal/index.php?w=1&z=5 |